Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes 02/21/2008Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission DRAFT February 21, 2008 Special Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 12 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02212008.httn 03/31/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, Hillgren and McDaniel - All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ian Burns, Esquire of Harper & Burns LLP Anthony Taylor, Esquire of Aleshire and Wynder Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 15, 2008 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 31, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Approved Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: Toerge SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 7, 2008. ITEM NO. 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Approved Commissioner Hillgren to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Page 1 of 12 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02212008.httn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 EJECT: AERIE CONDOMINIUMS 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place e application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartme ilding and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -u dtiple- family residential condominium complex with subterrane rking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Oce ulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coas nd Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (5 uare feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). T plication includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight ndominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit applicati luests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building witl front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Resideni :velopment Permit application relates to replacement of demolish artments occupied by low or moderate income households. No ur ;eting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement ordable housing units is required. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City wport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negat rlaration states that the subject development will not result in nificant impact on the environment. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the appliq redesigned the project based on the City Council's decision identify predominant line of existing development at 50.7 feet mean sea I Q. He then noted the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land t Amendment, Code Amendment, Tract Map, Modification and Cos idential Development Permit requests. The Mitigated Negs laration has been revised providing additional analysis related to red project. ter Eaton asked about the sufficiency of the Mitigated Ne$ and a requirement for a full Environmental Impact Report. Campbell answered that staff believes the Mitigated aration is sufficient and recommends action be taken to n tion to the City Council. Harp noted his agreement. :k Julian, applicant, gave an overview of the history of his applicatior h to the Planning Commission and City Council. At the direction of the y Council, there is now a scaled -back version of the project for Planninc mmission review. He noted the building has been designed above thr 7 MSL and is at a higher level than the existing apartment building. :re is a reduction in the proposed living area of 25 %, the units havf >n reduced from nine to eight but the parking remains the same. Gues -king has been designed at street level and a turning area has beer ated at the bottom level to improve efficiency. The view corridor ha: sn opened further from what exists today by eleven feet at the corner c ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -196 Recommended for approval Page 2 of 12 le : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \nm02212008.htTn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 pan and Carnation Boulevards resulting in a 44 degree range. T >osed height has been lowered by four feet from the prior plan and below the height limit. The majority of this square footage has be rporated underground and out of sight and over 38% of the buildi be below the existing grade of the property today. 46% of the buildi cture represents mechanical, storage, parking and circulation. AEF rporates state of the art technology to preserve and improve t ironment. Additional benefits from this project are three additional c et parking, LEED Certification design and reduction of traffic in 1 a. He noted the varied roof, deck and window designs in the project. Brion Jeannette, architect of the project, made a PowerPoi ;entation noting the first level of the building is at 53.50 MSL; eig s; square footage reduced by 17.6 %; guest parking at street lev ast level is totally subterranean; basement area will have recreatior s for tenants only; this basement area will need a modification to crea exiting from the building to an attached existing stairway down to tl ch; the first level has a maximum deck extension of ten to twelve fei second floor is at 65.0; the third floor is at 76.0 and has no de msions; the fourth floor is at 86.0; the proposed project has been pulls m and has less height; the exterior is stone finish with exterior plastf lic views are enhanced; vehicular elevators are servicing seven unit k -up spaces provided in sub - basement floor; dock design layout ently going through the Harbor Resources Department although that part of this review tonight. mmissioner Eaton asked what the color rendering on the dock lay resented and was told it was eel grass and the docks were situated not to shadow the eel grass. . Lepo noted that the docks are not part of this project application. mmission inquiry, he noted the only item that could be considered w( that part that touches the land. Cole asked about the predominant line of development. Jeannette answered the first finished floor is at 53.5. The City Cou cted the predominant line of development at 50.7. He added that th be an additional 2.9 feet to the bottom of the building and will itional bluff face all the way around. ier Toerge noted, and it was confirmed, that there is approximately 20 feet below the predominant line of exis it behind the bluff face. Paone, Land Use Counsel for the project noted that under CEQA yot with an Initial Study (IS); that IS may demonstrate that there is a ntial for significant environmental impacts; the decision is made tc are a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. Mitigated Negative Declaration deals with the issues that have beer .d and when circulated addresses those issues, then that is sufficient. question becomes is there a fair argument of a potential significan :t remaining after all the discussion and disclosures contained in the Page 3 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 ated Negative Declaration. The CEQA guidelines equate fai ment and substantial evidence as one in the same. Either way then to be substantial evidence; argument, unsubstantiated speculation on, all of those types of things are not substantial evidence. Someon( 3reeing with the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the lusion of the analysis or if someone says something could happen is < or opinion and is an issue that is addressed. It is our view that ther( substantial evidence to contradict these points. Substantial evidenc( ists of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts an( art opinion supported by facts. Harp noted a general concern that was raised in the presentati rding the slips are not part of the project plans that have be nitted. That impact on the eel grass has not been analyzed in tl ated Negative Declaration. He questioned whether the applicant ig for some modification or change to plans that were submitted. Jeannette answered they are not asking for the dock approval tonig even the review. He felt it was important that the Commissii lerstand the whole scope of the project, which is why you at least si it we are presenting. It is going through the Harbor Resources and mating has been set up to review the environmental documents Mar, 2008. No change is requested on what is being presented tonight. Harp noted the issue raised is if there is a 'piecemeal' situation, is something for the Commission to determine. Paone added that the decision had been made to not include tf s as part of the project. If they were ever to be included it was to be, when, down the road. However, in the interim, Harbor Resourct artment notified the owners that there was a public health and safe with respect to the docks. As a result of that and followir fission and negotiation, it was deemed an emergency situation by ft and a dock plan was submitted for review. There is an exemption !A 15.296C of the Guidelines which provide that work to correct a rgency will be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. nissioner Toerge asked if it was the existing docks in their that were determined to be a hazard. Paone answered yes. comment was opened. McCaffrey, president of the Board of Directors of the Channel mmunity Association noted their board has voted unanimously in this project. At Channel Reef with forty -eight living units all Hugh one gate to the garage proper there has never been ck Nichols of Corona del Mar noted his support of the project noting it good looking project and is a multi - family residential project. He adds at several other homes in Corona del Mar have a basement that is belc Page 4 of 12 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 and noted this was a precedent. h Dawson, noted the potential necessary excavation; the project has e economic sense; this project has taken enough time and he ask this be approved. Webb, noted she supports the application as the project will be to the community and is a property right and should be approved. Varon, noted his support of the application as the architect h ionded to the direction of the City Council and supports the applicant. Beck, noting his letter sent to the Commission, asked about the >osed structure and the horizontal predominant line of development. asked if it technically meets the requirements of predominant line o ical development if you are building a couple of floors below that ever igh it is not visible. This is the first project to go through the refine( r of looking at bluff development standards. yen McIntosh, noted her concerns of alterations to significant nati forms, protection of existing habitat, need for a comp) inmental Impact Report, and enormity of proposed complex plan. fission inquiry, she presented her written comments. :nt Moore noted his support of the project as this is a welcomed the community. i Vallejo noted her concerns of the Ocean Blvd curb cuts; this project endorsed by Coast Keepers; the docks are part of this project; s ig twenty feet lower than the 50.7 predominant line of developmei mitted a request for a full and complete Environmental Impact Rep( a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate with many issue tted or not properly evaluated; and, all citizens need to be represent( protected. She was unable to present her written comments that we jested by Chairman Hawkins. tt Bedgey noted his support of the project as the applicant has done was requested of him by the City Council. arilyn Beck stated she is not in support of the project as the Coastal se Plan policies are not being adhered to and would be precedent s( it was allowed and future deterioration of the bluff will happen when )mes on Carnation seek redevelopment. At Commission inquiry, -esented her written comments. Rasner noted his support of the project for similarly stated rea( added that the engineers who have certified this project are .rts and have credentials. He noted the views, lowered height visible stories and this project meets the FAR style. Eldridge noted his support of the project adding that car e well and this project will be an improvement to the community Page 5 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 6 of 12 anice Hansen noted she is not in favor of the project as she is concerned ilith the integrity of the bluff and change of character of the neighborhood. arco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group representing the Vallejos referencinc > submitted letter noted the procedural issues with CEQA; Mitigate( %gative Declaration for the larger project has not been approved instruction impacts; Coastal Commission letter dated in May 2007 hm t been answered; and you can't excavate the.bluff and protect the bluff the same time. Harp noted the Mitigated Negative Declaration has changed over has been re- circulated. A larger project was analyzed but now a smaller project. There is nothing wrong with approval of the fated Negative Declaration. �hn Martin noted his opposition to the project citing the lack of ivironmental Impact Report (EIR); the project is out of scale and an appropriate; we will see this project graded and we will ask how did this happen; we will all be sorry to see this if you let it go forward. Johnson noted it could be more massive and this is a good be good for the community. comment was closed. n Jeannette noted that there were no plant, flora or fauna iden+ needed to be protected; this is a four -story building with �ments; and the footprint of the building is almost identical to the is there today. missioner Hillgren asked about the demolition and excavation of face process. Jeannette answered the excavation along the bluff face will be num of three to five feet within the existing bluff mass. He th wined the process including shoring, testing of the integrity Cole asked about the massing and density, is there a request for Jeannette answered there is more open space provided, the units larger than the homes in the neighborhood, more parking is availal re is no request for a variance; however, there is a modification for roachment into the side yard that is below grade so they are not visi n the street. There is nothing above height or buildable area or of variances. Eaton asked about the gate operation for guest parking; IMr. Jeannette answered it is a keypad operation with a phone that is located in a center island even if the gate is moved in closer and discussed file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \nm02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 widths /lengths. Referencing his packe t :hed elevator companies information. He ators in operation for ingress /egress. submittal he noted explained there will be imissioner Toerge asked if the Public Works staff had an opportun lyze the gate, location of the key pad stanchion and driveway as not noted on the plans. r. Jeannette answered he will have to make that happen. Hawkins asked staff if they had safety concerns of the keypad? Brine answered yes, the placement of the ad they have not seen he has concern about the reduction of the v keypad in the center of a twenty foot aisle. a plan with this in place. imissioner Toerge, referencing the exhibit, asked about the security garage area allowing guests and tenants to use the parking a out an access barrier. Jeannette answered that had not been brought up in the past but Id be willing to look at that opportunity. missioner Toerge noted the improvements made to the garage a lation and guest parking have improved the parking program for ommissioner McDaniel asked about the procedure for a gate guard )mmunity. He noted his concern of anyone being able to use the parki there is no gate. Lepo answered that there ought to be some sort of signal device. Id be posted as residents only. Brine added that in a typical gate guarded community when we revi s we look for sufficient length for storage of vehicles and look fo - around. In a situation such as this a visitor not having the corr ?ss code and unable to contact the homeowner would be forced c out onto Carnation. That does not meet our normal requirements guarded access. Peotter asked about the park dedication fee. Lepo answered the appraisal was adjusted in July 2007; howe ,edent has been set that there is credit for existing units and beca project reduces the number of units, a park fee will not be required. Campbell noted a condition to be added to address the unc ;s on the first, second and third floors along Bayside Place that the required setback. They are not part of the modification ication as they were discovered late and not noticed. V this condition to eliminate them from this project. The Page 7 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02212008.ht n 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 would be, 'The project shall be revised to eliminate menns in the required 10 foot 7 inch side yard setback Bayside Place." Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the was suggested and agreed to replace the existing language of Condition 2 with this new language. Jeannette noted he would like the opportunity to work this out and to ;pt a condition to meet Code is something they have to work with. He .d the encroachments are minimal and is not pleased to have to immissioner Hillgren asked about Condition 13. Mr. Lepo answered this a Coastal Commission requirement and refers to the understanding of property owner that if they build on bluff face that is being eroded they not able to go to Coastal Commission for a permit for abutments or ur concrete, etc. loner Peotter inquired about the type of photometric under Condition 10. Campbell answered that the study will have analysis on the amount t on the ground and that it not dissipate off the project site. missioner Peotter inquired about curbs referenced in Condition 11. is the Planning Commission reviewing this? Lepo answered this is standard language and where it does not not be enforced. Campbell answered the review came about at the past discussion Commission. mmissioner Toerge noted the Planning Commission review of these ns means there is an opportunity for the public review and input. He led that the Construction, Traffic Management and Parking Plans need be reviewed by the Commission particularly since we are using a igated Negative Declaration and not an Environmental Impact Report. noted that Condition 20 talks about water leaving the project site due to �r- irrigation and asked if it would be appropriate to require satellite Lepo noted this condition is for when an errant sprinkler head goes off, gives the Code Enforcement personnel extra leverage to force missioner Eaton noted his support of this project as it is less tantial. He opined there is a difference between a bluff face and a and in this case where there is rock bluff faces that can be protected left undisturbed and meets the intent of the revised policies which the icil adopted to address this situation. Guest parking is at the street and is an advantage and the matter of security needs to be worked Page 8 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 before the Council meeting. There are a lot of mitigation measure: •essing construction management and parking management issues. car elevators are unusual for the City but are workable. The project is g to be a landmark and is consistent with the General Plan and the stal Land Use Plan. Campbell noted the guest parking area on the first level shows (ing spaces. There is a lack of a hammerhead on one of those spa( oh will make it difficult to use. There is a condition to allow the Tra lineer to further review that parking area. If that is not resolved thf ild be a loss of one parking space. There is a recommendation to so k the storage areas on the lower level to enhance the maneuvering one garage downstairs. These minor details are typically handled plan check stage. Currently they are over - parked now. r. Brine noted there is a chance of losing one parking space on :cond level due to the maneuverability issue. We can work with chitect on this issue. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded ssioner Hillgren per staff recommendation with the modification on 12. He proposed to delete the requirement for Planni ssioner review in Condition 11 and insert Planning Director and approval. A straw vote was taken and a majority approved. missioner Eaton, referring to Condition 102, the Planni mission would be the approving body and done at one time. Stn taken, majority approved. Ilowing a brief discussion, the change to Condition 102 would read •ior to issuance of a Demolition Permit, the Contractor shall submit istruction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the inning Commission....." Straw vote was taken and majority approved. is will be a public hearing and duly noticed. After a brief discussion i s approved that this may come back at various times if necessary will ded language that staff would make the determination. = missioner Toerge noted his earlier objections to this proposal were the Ddominate line of development; the mass of the project and compatibilit! :h adjacent neighboring structures and parking arrangement as it wa: t convenient. An EIR is not required although I don't agree with all tht itements in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, That the view corridor. ve been expanded is a significant change and will be of a huge benefi the community. This project will go to the Council for the final approval. any concerns with regard to parking have been raised; however, the, ve been addressed by the applicant. He recommended disapproval of to installation unless the keypad, queuing and turn - around opportunities n be worked out favorably with the Traffic Engineer. However, thes( sre not on the prior plan and creates problems. Puffing a gate then feats the effort of placing all the parking on the ground level. The gues rking is not for beach parking. He added the parking in the storage are: :hout tying up one of the elevators is an improvement. The predominan e of existing development was approved by the City Council at 50.7 fee Page 9 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn022120081tm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 >ove mean sea level. What is proposed is an excavation 20 feet below e 50.7 foot PLOED, resulting in a forty-foot cut from the curb face at arnation. If we did not allow any development below that predominant ie of development the property would still be cutting twenty feet of the uff away and going subterranean and affording rights that other operties have had together with the opportunity to go thirty -three feet gh above the curb. Referencing page eight of the draft resolution, he )ted that where it says the lower portion of the bluff will remain in their cisting condition is not accurate. Referencing page eleven, regarding the Aiding not extending below 50.7 feet, it does extend below. This is not insistent with what the Council approved nor with other development on arnation as none of them encroach this far down twenty feet below the cisting predominant line of development. On page thirteen there is a atement regarding project not extending below this elevation, and it does (tend below the line even though its not visible. These statements are Ise and misleading and should the Commission be inclined to approve e project, the Commission should consider revising the language in these r continued referencing Coastal Resource Protection Policy 4.4.1 -3 larding the predominant line of development is established not only to iit the visible encroachment into the bluff but all throughout the CLUP we k about minimizing the alterations to the coastal bluff. To allow this velopment to go twenty feet below the PLOED does not minimize eration to the bluff. This does not fall under components of approval of City Council. Regardless of what happens here, this issue will to back them. The added square footage will be massive and is not compatible :h the neighborhood. He then opined on the development of Channel ref. Land Use component 5.1.9 suggests we want to convey the aracter in these MFR zones of separate or clusters of living units and oid the appearance of a singular building volume. This project does not it as it is a massive singular building volume. Preserving the coastal iff, visual impact of the community and integrity of the Coastal Land Use an is not consistent with this project. He will not be supporting this Hawkins noted the language on page 8 of 34 in the resolution, the term bluff face throughout the items noted. missioner Toerge asked what happens if during the construction the is broken? He suggested that the Commission decide on the correct missioner Peotter amended his motion to include the term 'face' after on page 8 of 34; on page 11 of 34 and page 13 of 34 add, "...visible on of the.... ". The seconded of the motion agreed. imissioner Peotter noted this is a better project based on the policies rules governed by the City Council. imissioner Cole noted his support of the project and stated that the icant has responded to the direction of the City Council resulting in a Iler project, enhanced views and better parking. It is consistent with Page 10 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn02212008.htrn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 he revised Coastal Land Use Policy and has community support. Certain language that has been adopted by the City in the General Plan Update and the CLUP is being used to restrict private property owners from eveloping reasonable development. ommissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge bstain: None OBJECT: Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO.4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way (PA200"87) Revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Continued to 03/06/2008 The minutes of this portion of the meeting were taken by a Courl Stenographer and presented for approval when received. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Cole that the City Attorney will determine whether or not Hearing Officer is appropriate. If a Hearing Officer is appropriate he will be assigned and hear the case by March 6th. If the City Attorney decides the Planning Commission is the appropriate body then we will hear it Marc 6th. In the meantime, Fury will hire a new security company and have hem fully on board by Monday, February 25th and a new security plan submitted to the Police Department for approval by Wednesday February 7th and the security company will be in place by February 29th. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole and Hillgren Noes: Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS It was agreed that due to the late hour this portion of the agenda was cancelled. Cancelled a. City Council Follow -up - b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - Project status - Requests for excused absences - ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. JADJOURNMENTI Page 1 I of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 of 12 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 03/31/2008